Opening up budgets

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Tricia

(First appeared in theSun newspaper on 17 September 2015, here).

THE Auditor-General’s Office has found massive discrepancies in government spending for the longest time. While it is excellent that the auditor-general boldly reveals this year after year, it is important that civil society equips itself with tools to analyse national documents too, without having to rely on an external body.

IDEAS was the country researcher for the Open Budget Survey 2015, an international index that we launched last week. The survey covers 102 countries and assesses government budget transparency and accountability, including the space for public participation and the strength of supreme audit institutions (in our case, the Auditor-General’s Office) and Parliament in overseeing the budget. Essentially, it tells you how transparent and accountable the budget is, and whether the process leading to the budget is equally robust.

Understandably, to most people budgets are considered as very dry documents, full of figures and tables that make little sense. Each year when the Budget document is released, most people don’t read it, and refer instead to the prime minister’s speech as the “Budget”.

Of course, those of us involved in civil society, government and activism know otherwise. In other words, we are the policy geeks or wonks that spend the time analysing dry documents. This is because we know that the Budget document contains a wealth of information.

We know that the Budget is one of the following: It is a roadmap because it tells you what the country is planning to do for the full year ahead; it is a set of accounts because it tells you how much the country has spent in the last year, and how much it intends to spend in the coming year; it is a risk assessment because it can be a red flag telling you how risky our financial situation is (“can be” because this is true only if budgets are transparent); and it is a manifesto: because it tells you the social and economic priorities of the elected government.

Because the budget is a government’s plan for how it is going to use the public’s resources to meet the public’s needs, transparency is of utmost importance as it means that citizens can access information on how much revenue is collected, how much is being spent and in what areas, and finally how these resources are used in the right locations. The more open budgets are, the more empowering, since people like you and me would now be the judge of whether or not our government is a good steward of our public funds.

The 2015 survey results show that Malaysia scores 46 out of 100, meaning the government only provides us with limited budget information. This is a slight overall improvement from our earlier score of 39 in 2012, but is by no means reason to celebrate. Although we perform relatively well in oversight by the Auditor General’s Office (67 out of 100), thanks to the current AG’s scrupulous work, few realise his office is not independent of the executive and he cannot choose which agencies to audit.

More worrying is the fact we perform poorly in parliamentary oversight (15 out of 100). Parliament should ideally have a specialised budget research office, and the process of debating the budget – and the supplementary budget, which in itself is bad practice – is extremely limited. Parliament is not consulted before the executive spends any unanticipated revenue, nor before it spends contingency funds that were not identified in the originally tabled budget.

A robust budget cycle also includes an inclusive and comprehensive component of public participation, which Malaysia also performs poorly in (12 out of 100). This means the public has very limited opportunities to engage in the budget process. Although the National Budget Office under our Ministry of Finance organises focus groups and invites contributions, these are extremely general.

More effective and impactful could be parliamentary hearings on specific ministries and departments’ budgets to obtain feedback from the public. In fact, the public could also be invited to participate in the auditor-general’s auditing process and investigations.

Even if a small fraction of the public access budget data, having a transparent fiscal process would be able to strengthen oversight, improve policy choices and increase citizen participation to reduce the likelihood for governments to hide corrupt, wasteful and unpopular practices.

In fact, what is most worrying is that the government spends an excessive amount of money that is not even included within any budget documents in the form of contingent liabilities and off-budget spending. Citizens ought to demand that all forms of government expenditure are recorded and put into the central budget for better monitoring.

Today, fiscal transparency and increasingly, public participation are terms that are championed internationally by the World Bank, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), IMF (International Monetary Fund) and other global bodies. It is also by these standards that Malaysia and its competitiveness will be measured.

But ultimately, even if we care little about the international community’s opinions, more open, transparent and inclusive budgets would facilitate the process for better public service delivery to the citizens of Malaysia. Transparency is just a tool for us to get there.

Posted in Civil Society, Economics, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Whose cause is Bersih’s?

Posted on September 7, 2015 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 3 September 2015, here.

MANY of my urban, middle class friends and relatives went for their first ever rally last weekend, joining tens of thousands on the streets of Kuala Lumpur in a festive parade, mainly protesting against the prime minister and the RM2.6 billion scandal he has been reportedly linked with.

Yes, the unfolding narrative emerging out of the weekend’s peaceful Bersih 4 rally is that its participants were largely made up of the urban, posh, highly educated “haves” of society. Those who draw this conclusion usually also surmise that this renders irrelevant the cause for which they came, saying Bersih would be legitimised only upon gaining support from the rural, less educated “have-nots”.

Unfortunately, there is no attendance sign-in sheet to prove where the majority of people travelled from, nor their socio-economic backgrounds. Since there are no statistical means to test the demographic makeup of the rally attendees, one would have had to come to this conclusion based on observation alone.

This analysis is problematic on several levels.

First, this narrative conveniently ignores those hundreds of people who came from all over Malaysia, and not just hailing from Damansara Heights or Bangsar. People came in on their own by bus from the smaller semi-urban towns of Raub, Bukit Mertajam and Kota Tinggi. Mohd Hafis, 36, physically disabled as he was, rode his motorcycle from Penang for seven hours to join the rally. And these are just some stories among the thousands of others.

They exercised individual agency, taking a tremendous risk to come on their own initiative despite having heard of the harsh, violent treatment accorded to participants of previous rallies. They could not have guessed from the outset that the police would have allowed the rally to proceed without disruption, judging from previous incidents. Uncles and aunties came with self-made masks to protect themselves from tear gas.

Second, many revolutions, both historic and present-day, have been led by the middle class, including the French Revolution. The 2011 Arab Spring, and protests in Brazil, Turkey and China in recent years, have all been led by a younger, more highly educated and higher-income segment of the population, those more likely to make use of technology and social media to get their campaign messages across.

Even on home ground, the protest against the Malayan Union in 1946 was led by none other than Umno founder Datuk Onn Jaafar, who was born into the Johor sultanate and one of the few Malays privileged enough at the time to study in England. It cannot be denied that it was the aristocracy – the “bangsawan” – who fought for civil rights in our early years of nationhood.

Finally, it is difficult to comprehend why the message should be in any way diluted by the makeup of the people saying it. Nobody asks about whether or not the poor attend anti-Iraq war protests. Nobody wonders whether there is rural representation in Malaysian campaigns for the Palestinian cause. This is because the cause in itself is assumed to be benevolent and representative of the ails suffered by the low-income communities themselves.

And is this any different in the current scenario? Bersih has listed five demands, namely free and fair elections, a transparent government, the right to demonstrate, strengthening the parliamentary democratic system and saving the national economy.

While the right to demonstrate may not be the foremost demand on the minds of poor Malaysians who struggle to make ends meet on a daily basis, this does not mean they do not value their individual right to have their voices heard. Surely there is merit in calling for the government to save the economy – in fact; it is the lowest-income communities who would benefit most from this, given the rising cost of living. And it is the small businesses – yes, even the bumiputra owners – which complain about the lack of transparency in public procurement. So whose cause is it that Bersih stands for?

Defining the middle class is not always easy, but using what the World Bank proposed in its December 2014 Economic Report, 33% of all Malaysian households fall into the middle class or beyond, who earned a monthly income of more than RM5,919 in 2014. But when defined on aspirations (taking a factor of 2.5 times the poverty line and average income), this grows to more than half of Malaysian households, 83% of whom live in Peninsular Malaysia and more than 75% of whom live in urban areas.

The reality is that in many of our modern societies, it’s usually the more educated and exposed communities who have the opportunities to point to the gaps and failures of government administration, the education and legal systems, and are more demanding of their leaders. The middle class is empowered by technology; the “me generation” that is not easily placated by top-down approaches.

But the middle class may be larger and more representative of Malaysians than we think. Just because a group of people is middle class – however you define it, and whether or not it accurately encompasses the myriad of people who turned up for Bersih – does this mean they are out of touch with and therefore cannot articulate the concerns of others? Shall we therefore wait for legitimacy to be granted to us by whom we patronisingly call our “rural, uneducated” friends before we begin championing a cause we believe is equally theirs?

We should not assume to know what we patronisingly refer to as the “rural” or “uneducated” communities are concerned about just because they could not, or would not, turn up in visibly apparent numbers. But likewise, a burgeoning middle class from your Alor Star mechanic to your Muar coffeeshop owner should not be patronised as being unable to articulate universal concerns.

Posted in Civil Society, Elections | Leave a comment

A prime minister’s powers

Posted on August 17, 2015 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 13 August 2015, here.

THE news of the prime minister having removed the attorney-general and deputy prime minister; promoting the Public Accounts Committee chairman; and transferring several Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers shocked many people. That so much power is concentrated in the hands of one man in the highest of positions is considered unbelievable.

The reality is that these systems have always been in place. The subversions of these institutions meant to be independent and free from political interference have long pre-dated the current administration, as well as that of the previous administration.

First, there is some dispute as to the constitutionality of Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s demotion as the attorney-general (AG). Before 1963, the Federal Constitution stipulated that the AG should be removed only by way of a tribunal (in the like manner as a Federal Court judge), but the constitution was later amended making it much easier to remove an AG.

It is arguable that he should have received the right to early notification and due process as a civil servant. But the long and short of it is that the prime minister does ultimately have the power to remove the AG if he so wishes, and this he did.

Second, by convention, the deputy prime minister has always been the elected deputy president of the largest party in the ruling coalition, in this case Umno. Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is still the rightfully elected deputy president (a special general assembly would have to be called to change this, with two-thirds of party delegates), and ought to therefore occupy the position of deputy prime minister.

This is the first time in Malaysia’s recent history that the deputy president is not also the deputy prime minister – in 1998, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was sacked as the deputy president when removed as deputy prime minister. Because this practice is merely by convention and is not legally enshrined, the prime minister therefore does have the power to break such a practice.

Third, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which is a bi-partisan parliamentary select committee monitoring body, is made up of backbenchers to ensure there is no conflict of interest, that is, members of Parliament who are not members of the executive.

The resignation of Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed as chairman of the PAC was necessitated out of the prime minister’s Cabinet reshuffle as he was appointed deputy home minister. Again, there was nothing illegal about this since for all intents and purposes, he was in fact given a promotion.

If anything is to be disputed, it is that the PAC has not been allowed to continue its investigations, since in the absence of the chairman, the vice-chairman ought to take over. Parliament Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin ordered a freeze on the probe on a technicality – that this provision “cannot be used when the post is vacated”. The speaker is elected by members of Parliament by a simple majority, which effectively means whoever is proposed by the leader of the ruling party would be voted in.

Finally, the two officers being transferred out of the MACC into the Prime Minister’s Department (a decision which has since been reversed) is very much the prerogative of the prime minister.

The MACC reports to the Prime Minister’s Office and is therefore not an independent entity, which is a legacy of its past. First set up as the Anti-Corruption Agency under the Home Ministry, it later changed its name to the MACC by way of an Act that also strengthened its ability to conduct more far-reaching investigations.

Not having its own service commission means that MACC officers are hired from the same pool of civil servants that all other government bodies draw from, namely the Public Services Commission. As such, the power to hire and fire lies at the discretion of the executive, the head of which is the prime minister. As long as the MACC remains parked under the Prime Minister’s Office, it will always be subservient to political demands. The chief commissioner’s position is not secure either.

The prime minister in Malaysia is a master chess player because his position allows him the freedom and power to do so, shifting around pawns on the board. This is an institutional problem that Malaysians should recognise as having long been established – it is not something new and this did not happen overnight. It is a system that is dependent upon the benevolence of the leader at hand – if a good person occupies the prime minister’s position, he would do what is morally right.

Are there solutions to reverse this institutional failure? Of course there are, and civil society organisations have long clamoured to get these reforms into the public eye, with little success.

The way to ensure that such powers are not blatantly abused is to reduce the stronghold of the prime minister and the executive over such institutions.

The MACC should no longer report to the Prime Minister’s Office but to Parliament. It should have a constitutional mandate to ensure its independence, ability to hire and fire its own officers and whose chief has security of tenure. A governing Anti-Corruption Commission should be kept separate and distinct from the operating, investigating agency.

The issue of the attorney-general’s removal has to be seen in the context of more urgent reforms, namely to separate the role of the AG as having sole discretion to determine whether or not to prosecute someone for a criminal charge, and that of the public prosecutor, the latter of which should be given to an independent body altogether. Whether the AG is a professional (meaning drawn from the civil service) or a political appointment is a debatable point.Some lawyers have argued that the head of prosecution should be professional, whereas the AG should be political, thereby answering to Parliament.

The PAC – along with all other parliamentary select committees – should be given the independence to carry out its tasks; why should the executive interfere with a parliamentary body at all? In other Commonwealth countries, such select committees are allowed to operate freely.

However, since it is the majority party that controls Parliament, it is imperative that those occupying those positions – especially at the highest levels – practise integrity and act in public interest as they are answerable to the voters who put them there in the first place.

Ultimately, it is institutional reforms that will provide the safeguards and mechanisms to mitigate for the risks of inconsistent leadership.

Posted in Corruption, General Politics, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Why media freedom matters

Posted on August 3, 2015 by Tricia

First published in theSun on 30 July here.

THE three-month suspension of The Edge Financial Daily and The Edge Weekly newspapers by the Home Ministry is a chilling reminder of a government that silences any form of critical questioning. The obvious intention is to strike fear into our hearts, demonstrating they are the source of all control – with them lies the power to grant a printing permit, just as the power to revoke it.

This comes on the back of the Sarawak Report portal being barred in Malaysia, a blatant act of internet censorship despite the government committing to open online access. Journalist groups have been especially angered at recent developments. Rightly so, given it is their profession – and everything they stand for – being challenged. Without the freedom to report independently on issues regardless of the powers that be, what credibility have they?

But it is not just the media fraternity that needs to pay careful attention to media freedom. How freely and openly journalists are to write their stories has a much deeper impact on the nation as a whole in a host of other areas like the economy, democracy and ultimately, our very own pockets.

For instance, the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index uses media freedom as an indicator of civil liberties that measures, among others, how free print media is, the level of openness and free discussion of public issues, and political restrictions to the internet. A robust, independent media is a fundamental pillar in a “mature democratic society”, the third strategic challenge outlined by Vision 2020, a vision fast fading away.

In such an environment, a dynamic and symbiotic relationship between journalists, citizens, government officers, the private sector and even columnists like myself are free to agree or disagree with each other, correcting our opinions through each iteration of written material, thereby fine-tuning and sharpening the presentation and consumption of news in this organic fashion.

Business people rely on an environment in which journalists are able to fairly, critically and accurately report on the conditions of the economy in which they operate. Although many of the indices do not directly measure media freedom, reports like the Economic Freedom of the World Index by Fraser Institute do value the rule of law, impartial courts, and the integrity of the legal system in protecting property rights in a free economy. It will be interesting to see the court’s reaction in the judicial review filed by The Edge contesting its three-month suspension. True enough, a study of 115 countries around the world by academics Alam and Shah (The Role of Press Freedom in Economic Development: A Global Perspective, February 2013) found a bidirectional relationship between press freedom and economic growth. This means that press freedom contributed to greater economic growth in the countries studied, and vice versa. These results coincide with similar indices produced by Reporters Sans Frontières and Freedom House.

Higher economic growth leads to better job opportunities, more value for the ringgit in our bank accounts, higher purchasing power for housing and our children’s education (present and future), and a better quality of life. This may be a long trajectory, but it can certainly be shown that the flourishing of civil rights produces better conditions for citizens and our families.

Many of these international indices show consistent findings, that countries with better protection of civil liberties such as media freedom also enjoy better economic rights and economic growth. This is not too surprising, since investors would be much more at ease entering a market in which information is abundant and not scarce, where news is readily available and not shrouded under a blanket of secrecy.

A source of steady, reliable and independent information about matters related to the local economy is highly valued by any private businessperson. News about, for instance, the stock market, the state of the domestic currency, sovereign wealth funds, the banking sector, government bonds and yes, even the strength of state-owned enterprises or government-linked companies (since government is present in such a large percentage of business in Malaysia), are of interest and concern.

Suffice to say that The Edge has built its credibility and reputation over the years in covering these subjects.

Does media freedom matter? Yes, and not just to journalists, and businesspeople seeking accurate reporting from various sources, but also to citizens who desire a plethora of media choice, better economic conditions and an improved quality of life.

In fact, one may go a step further to question the need for a printing permit at all. It is such archaic practice that lends itself to self-censorship, a practice all Malaysian media is familiar with. The government has in the past held that print media restrictions are necessary to safeguard against ethnic tension, an argument that does not hold water and is a convenient excuse.

The internet will soon render these discussions moot. A more tech-savvy population will be able to circumvent website bans, and portals can be hosted anywhere in the world. The Malaysian government is living in the past if it thinks it can continue to stifle the flow of information and news. It should grow up and realise that guaranteeing such freedoms would be a net positive for all of us in the long run.

Posted in Media, Culture, Literature, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Taking back liberal

Posted on July 10, 2015 by Tricia

(first published in theSun on Thursday, 9 July 2015, here)

AT an IDEAS public forum last weekend on whether or not Malaysia is ready for a liberal political party, it was evident that all three of the panel speakers acknowledged the term “liberal” as being controversial in this country.

Sure enough, in July 2014, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) issued a fatwa against any individuals professing liberalism, and deemed any publications with elements of liberalism (and religious pluralism) as haram or prohibited, and liable for seizure by religious authorities. In May this year, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak said that liberalism is a threat to Islam, and that it would ruin Muslim identity. Is this really the case?

This is surely ironic, given that liberalism is fundamentally embedded into the core of our nation’s being. That is, if our leaders bothered to recall their history lessons. Audience at the event on Saturday were reminded that our very own Rukunegara, crafted by the late Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, contains as one of its goals to “ensure a liberal approach towards our rich and diverse cultural traditions”.

In fact, one of the speakers, Dr Juli Minoves, representing Liberal International (a global network of more than 100 liberal political parties around the world), shared the fundamental principles of liberalism, which may in fact be better accepted by a bigger majority than what people may think.

The Oxford Manifesto 1947 has as amongst its principles the belief in a person’s independent thought and action, respect for the human person and family, freedom of worship and liberty of conscience, freedom of speech and of the press, freedom to associate or not to associate, free choice of occupation, access to full and varied education, the right to private ownership of property, gender equality and consumers’ free choice.

According to this manifesto, these rights can be conferred only by true democracy, and that “true democracy … is based on the conscious, free and enlightened consent of the majority, expressed through free and secret ballot”. These seem to be central tenets of any democracy, and far be it to decry any of these fundamental forms that essentially make up our own constitutional democracy in Malaysia.

The critique of liberalism in Malaysia has stemmed mainly from its perceived incongruity with religion, as if liberalism is the very antithesis of religion, or is essentially anti-religion (as one of the audience members so eagerly pointed out). If anything, liberalism is silent on religion, and is neutral on matters of faith and the afterlife.

Speaker Khalid Jaafar from Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD) reminded as such, that religion speaks primarily of salvation and spiritual matters, saying little of affairs of the world. Both he and Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, former CEO of the PAS Research Centre, quoted from the Islamic hadith, which states that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), whilst giving advice, said, “You know best the affairs of your worldly life” (from the Sahih Muslim hadith).

That is to say that religious texts provide us guiding principles on morality, but are short on the state of our existence. Human beings are bestowed the gift of intellect and reason, and equipped with these tools, we determine for ourselves the shape and form of democracy we want to have.

What society do we want for here and now? What type and quality of education do we want for our children? Liberalism is an ideology (with socialism or communism as opposing ideologies) that does not detract from, but rather adds to, a person’s faith and experience of the present world.

In fact, religion can only truly flourish in a liberal society.

What the forum was disappointingly thin on, however, was the position that liberals take with regard to the role of the state. By strict definition, classical liberals would prefer to adopt an approach in which the state has a much smaller role over the lives of its citizens. When government is given a greater say over how our lives are governed (through economic and education policies, to name a few), this reduces our individual right to self-determination.

Perhaps the question for Malaysians today is not whether the time is ripe for a liberal political party, but whether liberalism can flourish the way it did in the past.

IDEAS president Tunku Zain Al-‘Abidin Tuanku Muhriz reminded that the Umno of the past in fact believed in all the fundamental principles of liberalism, when working towards the nation’s independence, in its stance for free enterprise and against communism, and led by Almarhum Tunku Abdul Rahman, and therefore asked if they were not already liberal? Undoubtedly the party of 1946 is a different species from what it is in 2015.

Both Parti Gerakan and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), which have observer status respectively with Liberal International, are parties that believe in liberal principles. Gerakan is in dismal shape today, if any shape at all, whilst PKR is faced with coalition problems of its own. It remains to be seen if these self-avowed liberal parties are able to take mainstage at any point in the country’s future.

That said, public fora such as these are imperative – if anything, they exemplify and manifest into being the belief in freedom of speech. Liberals are by definition liberal in their approach to others (or ought to be), taking into serious consideration the views of all even if disagreeing with them. Is liberalism really a threat to society or religion? If the belief in the very fundamentals of democracy forms the mould of liberalism – the same democracy that our founding fathers worked towards and that which we espouse today – then the answer is a firm resounding no. It is time to take back the term liberal.

Posted in Liberalism, Philosophy, Religion | Leave a comment

Nothing to hide

Posted on June 19, 2015 by Tricia

(First published in theSun on 11 June 2015, here).

IN our A-Level English literature classes, we used to describe Shakespearean comedy as “someone else’s tragedy”. Such is the case of the most recent public relations disaster to have befallen our prime minister – the #Nothing2Hide forum a week ago that turned disastrous after he failed to show up as scheduled. It could have been a prime opportunity for him to explain his side of the story of what is now an ever-growing 1MDB monster.

Why 1MDB has captured the imagination of at least middle-class Malaysia is not surprising: it has an impact on country ratings, foreign investment and ultimately our domestic economy.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Abdul Wahid Omar may be right in saying “there is no systemic risk to the financial system”, but this is because even if 1MDB fails to pay back its owed debt to local and international banks from whom they have borrowed, it is the Malaysian government (i.e. government coffers and taxpayers’ money) that will have to cough up these sums as the final guarantor. Sure, the financial system is protected, but government funds would be depleted, funds that otherwise would have been spent on public goods like education and health services.

But the second and probably more powerful reason it frustrates and angers Malaysians is because the “lost” funds (and as mentioned in a previous column, money is never “lost”, it is just always “somewhere else”) are speculated to have enriched certain pockets.

It was the New York Times that highlighted the wealth of businessman Jho Low, his connection with 1MDB and raised questions of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s family members’ wealth. The Prime Minister’s Office has previously said, “neither any money spent on travel, nor any jewellery purchases, nor the alleged contents of any safes are unusual for a person of the prime minister’s position, responsibilities and legacy family assets” (New York Times, Feb 8, 2015).

Now, it would be almost impossible to verify the veracity of any statements made by any leader, embattled or otherwise, without the necessary system to capture such information with.

Civil society has long called for a mandatory asset declaration system, compulsory for those holding public office. As civil servants or elected representatives, they have immediate control over public assets and funds, manage the award of government contracts, and are at the highest risk of enriching themselves at the cost of public benefit.

IDEAS released a policy brief last week that details what Malaysia should do in adopting an asset declaration system, which can be found on our website. Fundamentally, our senior researcher Shaza Onn states that: “Ministers and their aides, top government officials, civil servants, members of Parliament, and state governments’ (executive councillors)” ought to declare their assets. The only two state governments to have implemented asset declaration for their exco members (without necessarily having a law to instruct as such) are Selangor and Penang.

And although there is no one set of best practices that can be equally applied around the world, there are certainly some features that must be included (if the government decides it wants to be a truly transparent administration): First, an asset declaration system should be able to detect both conflict of interest and illicit enrichment. Second, there should be a legal framework to back the system up. Third, the declaration should apply to all branches of government annually and to a large scope of assets. Fourth, the system must have an effective monitoring and verification mechanism. Fifth, its sanctions mechanism should be equally effective and enforced, so those failing to do so would be charged as criminals or given disciplinary sanctions. Finally, the system should allow for such assets to be publicly available.

Critics of asset declaration have pointed to the need to protect privacy. But the rule is to ask which is more important: whether officials’ right to privacy outweighs public interest resulting from disclosure, or vice versa. And to that, one could say that individuals are free to choose whether to enter public service or not. If you choose to be a politician or civil servant, you essentially give up your right to privacy, as a custodian of public assets.

In Malaysia, ministers do declare their assets at present, but only to the prime minister. It is unclear if there is any requirement for the prime minister to declare his assets, or to whom, if any. Civil servants also do declare their assets, but this is just internally verified.

Our paper proposes that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is brought in to verify declarations made by politicians to a Parliamentary Committee, and by civil servants to their respective ministries. One could argue that politicians would circumvent such a system by appointing proxies. But an effective system is a starting point in getting the basics right, which could later be improved to detect other anomalies.

In short, an effective asset declaration system, if enforced properly, would prevent conflict of interest amongst ministers and public officials – and can be used to detect abuse. Governments can use asset declaration to build trust with citizens since they have the opportunity to clarify the origins of their personal wealth. And goodness knows the trust gap is huge right now.

In the case of Slovenia, both the prime minister and Opposition leader were demanded to resign after they hid high-value assets and did not declare conflicts of interest in business deals (Transparency International, 2013). Back home, our own leaders can pre-empt this happening to them by having their (and their family members’) assets publicly declared.

Posted in Corruption, Economics, General Politics, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Waking up to an old, brewing crisis

Posted on May 31, 2015 by Tricia

(First published in theSun on 28 May 2015, here).

MALAYSIANS have finally woken up to the cruel plight faced by refugees and migrant workers following the consecutive events of the last few weeks. The most disconcerting has been the discovery of 139 grave sites earlier this week in Padang Besar, Perlis, where not only were detention camps found, there was also evidence of torture – bullets and metal chains near the grave sites.

Although this has set off international alarm bells of a humanitarian crisis unfolding in our own backyard, Malaysians should also realise that such events are nothing new. Refugees and migrant workers have arrived by the thousands over the last decade, most of them under similarly arduous conditions. Tenaganita, an NGO that deals with migrant workers’ rights, claims that the Malaysian authorities knew of the mass graves for years, but little had been done. The bulk of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) caseload is made up of refugees from Myanmar, a large percentage of which are Rohingyas, most of whom have arrived by boat, and they have been processing these cases for years.

What then, accounts for the limelight that is being cast on them this time? Why is there such intense scrutiny only now, and never before? One possible reason is that for the first time, hard evidence has been found in the form of actual corpses buried in the ground, numbering in the hundreds (starting out with the mass graves found in southern Thailand in early May). Prior to this, humanitarian aid workers and NGOs have known of the complex network between traffickers, local villagers and even officials, but no proof was available.

And it is possibly also because the Thai authorities started cracking down on this web that traffickers are said to have abandoned their boat-loads of people coming from Myanmar and Bangladesh, leaving them stranded at sea with no food or water. The silver lining in this dark, dark cloud is perhaps only that with public pressure and attention, the governments involved have no choice but to finally get their act together.

Some of them have come together to work out a temporary solution, where Indonesia and Malaysia are to offer shelter for up to 7,000 refugees (those coming from sea) for a one-year period, while Thailand will provide humanitarian aid to those on the boats. This is good, but not nearly good enough. In dealing with asylum seekers, there are only three possible solutions: first, voluntary repatriation; second, national integration; and third, relocation to other countries.

Given the positions of both the Malaysian and Myanmar governments, the first two have not been workable, although they are preferred options that will only be feasible with political will. Myanmar is hardly going to accept the Rohingyas since their citizenship is not recognised in their constitution, and Malaysia, not being signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, is not willing to cover the costs needed for the refugees’ basic health and educational needs, much less integrate them into Malaysian society. As at the end of April 2015, there are more than 150,000 refugees registered with the UNHCR and there are still others who are undocumented.

Europe is dealing with a similar crisis, where boatloads of West Africans take dangerous journeys to reach the shores of Greece, Italy and Spain. This year alone, 954 lives of migrants have been lost as a result of boats that have sunk. The difference between Europe and Asean is that they have funds to finance whole operations and have a European Asylum Support Office, which deploys teams to process asylum applications. Second, they have laws that recognise refugee protection; the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2012 that “boat people must be given a fair chance to apply for asylum and may not automatically be sent back even if rescued in international waters” (The Economist, April 2015).

Working out a longer-term solution will be the challenge. Countries in Asean have only ever practised the principle of non-interference, preferring instead to focus on economic integration. But brushing under the carpet what can only grow as a deepening crisis will not work any longer. Malaysia, as Chair of Asean this year, has the moral obligation to take leadership and challenge other member countries to share in this responsibility.

In fact, the primary challenge will lie in convincing governments (ours included) that there are in fact socioeconomic benefits to the freer movement of people across the region, both for source and destination countries. Annual remittances make up three times the amount of foreign aid, and movement of people help meet the demand for skills and services in destination countries.

A resolution I helped draft, emerging from an Economic Freedom Network conference on migration put it succinctly, stating that “the freedom to move voluntarily needs to be protected and facilitated”, where amongst other recommendations, “rules and regulations should be simplified and made transparent, reduction in transaction costs will switch migration from illegal to legal channels” and “recruitment agencies should operate in a free, competitive and transparent environment, with proper disclosure and accountability.” The Malaysian legal and regulatory framework needs some severe overhauling in this regard, in order to facilitate migration. Not doing so means people go through shadowy illegal channels, resulting in the crisis we have today.

It was heartwarming to know many Malaysians were concerned about the refugees out at sea, where many are contributing funds and clothes to help those already landed in Langkawi. But to see them as humans with dignity also means acknowledging that such asylum seekers and other migrant workers are peaceful and not out to create sociocultural problems here, as many Malaysians tend to believe. They move in search of better lives and prosperity for themselves and their families. Destination countries like ours should accord such basic access to services including civil and legal rights, and they should not be discriminated against.

Our prime minister has called this an international problem, inviting Japan to provide any assistance it can. An international meeting today will also have international presence, including that of the United States. Certainly, more collaborative help is welcome, especially advice from others who may have previously dealt with this problem. But primary responsibility and leadership need to emerge from our own region. Signing the United Nations Convention would be a first step of many bigger steps to take. We owe it to the hundreds and possibly thousands who, silenced in life, are now also silenced in death.

Posted in Corruption, Human Rights, Public Administration | Leave a comment

On the 11th Malaysia Plan

Posted on May 19, 2015 by Tricia

Bloomberg Malaysia interviewed me today on the 11th Malaysia Plan that is due to be tabled in Parliament on Thursday, 21st May 2015. This is the final 5-year plan before Malaysia is due to achieve Vision 2020 five years from now. Here’s what I think.

Posted in Economics, Public Administration, Transparency and Good Governance | Leave a comment

Debate on the TPPA

Posted on May 19, 2015 by Tricia

IDEAS organised a debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) on 28 March at the Kuala Lumpur Teaching Centre, Nottingham University. It was a rich debate by two gentlemen, both whose views I respect very much. We got the audience to vote both before and after, whether or not they were pro or against economic liberalisation and the TPPA. Members of the audience were asked to vote on whether they supported the TPPA and economic liberalisation. Before the debate, 53% voted yes, 19% voted no and 28% said they were unsure. After the debate, the numbers changed dramatically: 68% voted yes, 26% voted no and only 6% unsure – an increase of 15% for those supportive. Below are some welcoming remarks I gave as an introduction before the session began.

**

Good morning to YB Charles Santiago (MP of Klang) and debater today, together with Dr. Razeen Sally (Chair of Political Economy and Governance at IDEAS, also Associate Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy), Dr. Trevor Parfait, from Nottingham University, Friends from SEANET, Members of the media, friends, ladies & gentlemen.

A very warm welcome to all of you to the TPPA Debate. Thank you for giving up your Saturday morning to be with us.

For those who don’t already know us, IDEAS is an independent, not-for-profit, classical liberal think tank that seeks to promote better public policy solutions in the country, especially in the areas of political economy and governance, and education. We believe in 4 principles and all our work is grounded on these: the rule of law (where all citizens are treated equally before the law), individual liberty (basic civil liberties), free markets (the free movement of goods and services), and limited government (where government should have limited involvement in the people’s daily lives).

We’re also very proud of the two special projects that have emerged, namely our IDEAS Autism Centre for low-income autistic children, and an IDEAS Academy, a secondary-level learning centre for refugees and stateless children.

And SEANET, that you see here today, is the Southeast Asian Network for Development, which is our initiative to spread the same principles that IDEAS believes in to ASEAN countries. And there will be many other activities being organised by SEANET in the future.

I’d like to especially thank Nottingham University, our co-organiser, for the generous use of this hall today. You are fast gaining a reputation for facilitating open dialogue in a country that increasingly represses free speech.

We’re really excited about today’s event, not just because of the nature of the event – Malaysians very rarely like to debate. We don’t like confrontation.

We’re excited because it’s a rare opportunity to bring together people of different opinions when it comes to solving the economic problems of the country.

Malaysia was once known in the region as a “tiger cub economy”, almost but not quite reaching the level of a tiger economy, following its export-driven model of economic development. But after the financial crisis of 1997 growth rates were nowhere close to what we experienced prior to that.

Yes, we were still able to register a 6% growth rate in 2014. Yes, we had a 7.1% growth of private consumption. Yes, we have a RM9 billion trade surplus.

But yet we are riddled with many other problems: a household debt of 86.6%, oil and gas contributes an unsustainable one third to our national revenues, a bloated civil service, weak public procurement practices, all of which are of great concern. Bank Negara recently defended the country’s investment numbers, saying private sector investment accounted for 64% of total investment in 2014.

This may be true, but the 36% of public investment is also a whopping amount. GLCs control more than half the industry share in utilities, transportation, warehousing, agriculture, banking, ICT and retail trade. GLCs account for 36% and 54% of the Bursa Malaysia market capitalisation and the KLCI. This means small traders and companies are being crowded out of the market.

Which brings us to the theme being debated today. The TPPA has been an extremely controversial agreement, namely because there is disagreement on what impacts it will have on the economy. Essentially, will it help or harm our Malaysian economy and its people?

MITI has been accused of being secretive about the agreement’s contents, whilst the most controversial chapters on intellectual property, government procurement and ISDS (inter-state dispute settlements) are still being negotiated, the results of which are rarely discussed in public.

IDEAS and SEANET believe that a market-based economy is better in catalysing growth. But we don’t necessarily have a corporate view on how to do it.

Some of us think that the most ideal agreement would be a unilateral agreement, in which no countries are excluded from the “all boys’ club”, so to speak. Others feel that bilateral arrangements are actually better and a more efficient arrangement between two mutually agreeing nations. In the absence of unilateral trade, some believe the next best bet are multilateral agreements like the TPPA because although it excludes many, those it does include would greatly benefit, from the consumers’ point of view.

Others, like me, feel there are costs and benefits (many of which haven’t actually been measured yet, nor put out transparently in the open for the rest of the Malaysian public) but on the whole, the TPPA would be an opportunity to reform many archaic practices within government that make us sluggish and uncompetitive. But without saying too much more, I am proud that IDEAS and SEANET are able to provide an opportunity and platform for open, rational and most importantly, informed debate.Such space is rare in Malaysia and

I am honoured to have with us renowned individuals to speak both for and against the TPPA.
I have had the privilege of knowing both of them even before I joined IDEAS – Dr. Razeen and I have shared several conversations on the commonalities between Malaysia and Sri Lanka, where he is from. Charles Santiago worked closely with me on the Selangor water negotiations (though I must say cheekily that YB, your constituents are in a port area that depends on trade, no?)

With that, Ladies & Gentlemen. Once again, I warmly welcome you to our first Doha-style debate. If we aren’t able to convince you, let us at least agree to disagree.

Enjoy the show!

Posted in Economics | Leave a comment

Australia-Malaysia Youth Forum 2015

Posted on May 19, 2015 by Tricia

I had the privilege of giving some introductory remarks recently on 14 May 2015 at the Australian High Commission, with whom IDEAS jointly organised an Australia-Malaysia Youth Forum 2015. 

**

Good morning to HE Rod Smith, PSM, Australian High Commissioner to Malaysia, Participants at the Australia-Malaysia Youth Forum 2015, Friends and Colleagues. IDEAS is very pleased and honoured to be jointly organising today’s forum to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Australia’s diplomatic presence in Malaysia.

We are also honoured to have in our presence today some of the brightest young leaders in various different fields, some students, working professionals, activists, academics and intellectuals.

When I asked around the office what was the first thing people thought of when it comes to Malaysia-Australia relations, the 3 things they immediately said were: Education, Migration and Trade. And how true this is.

If you were to throw a stone anywhere in the Klang Valley, chances are you would hit an Australian graduate. In 2012, an estimated 22,000 Malaysians were enrolled in Australian education institutions onshore, with approximately 21,000 Malaysian and international students studying for Australian qualifications in Malaysia. I, too, happen to be an alumni of Monash University myself (and continue to be involved through the Monash Business School’s Advisory Council).

And of course in the area of Migration: The reality is many of us have relatives and friends who now live in Australia. As at 2011, 116,196 Malaysian-born people live in Australia, an increase of 25.8% from 2006. Family visits, gatherings, reunions, and therefore our shared stories and histories now extend far beyond the borders of Malaysia and into Australian land.

And in trade: Malaysia and Australia signed a Free Trade Agreement in 2012, which came into effect in 2013, which has and will facilitate even greater trade between our two countries, especially in the areas of agriculture, tourism, education, telecommunication and finances. Australia and Malaysia are each other’s 9th largest trading partners, having traded RM31.57 billion worth of goods and services in 2014. 

There are things that we share in common, and just to name a few:

We are both Commonwealth countries with a system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. We both have extremely young populations, where more than 40% of our populations are under the age of 25. We are both negotiating a highly controversial multi-nation trade agreement, the TPPA, with 10 other countries. And finally, our countries are heterogeneous in our ethnicity, religion and cultures, sharing similar challenges

All of these provide us the opportunity to explore how we have each dealt with issues like extremism and intolerance, human rights, freedom of expression, social cohesion, economic empowerment, minority rights and learn lessons from the other.  Some interesting questions I personally would have when thinking of these issues in the context of Malaysia-Australia bilateral relationship are as follows: First, to what extent can Malaysia and Australia together counter regional challenges (trade, security, migration, human rights)? Does each country have respective national interests that may affect the impact of this? Second, how can a deeper relationship be explored between both countries on a range of fronts at varying levels and tracks i.e. not just diplomatic, but on civil society, business and other fronts? Third, what lessons can be learnt from each other, which can be applied in our respective countries? Are there xenophobic realities within each country’s communities that would make it difficult for this to happen?

Today we will be exploring all of these issues in three high-level panels, which I look forward to.

  1. First, on rising extremism: Challenges for Australia and Malaysia where we will discuss how each country approaches the threat of terrorism and how we counter the narrative of extremist groups.
  2. Second, on economic integration and liberalisation. Both Australia and Malaysia are in the final stages of negotiating the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (the controversial TPPA). We will discuss the benefits and costs of opening up our trade barriers even further, as a result of the TPPA and other economic integration activities.
  3. Finally, we will talk about how to balance social cohesion with free speech. With Malaysia’s recent controversial amendments to the Sedition Act, how does this bode for freedom of expression? What are the implications of this on national unity?

Thank you once again to the Australian High Commission, participants and friends for being here this morning. I wish us all a stimulating morning, learning from each other towards greater things. Thank you.

Posted in Civil Society, Economics, Outside Malaysia | Leave a comment